Tech —

BBC realizes the obvious, puts 3D plans on hold

People can't be bothered to watch in 3D, even when they have the hardware.

The BBC has been running a trial in which it films and broadcasts certain sports events and dramatic productions in 3D. Although this trial is still not over—the Doctor Who 50th anniversary special in November will be one of the final 3D broadcasts—the decision has been made: once the trial ends, 3D will be abandoned, at least until 2016.

This follows ESPN's decision last month to shut down its 3D sports broadcasts by the end of the year.

The reason for both companies' decisions is the same: it turns out that nobody actually watches 3D TV. The BBC did have some successful broadcasts—it's estimated that half of the 3D-equipped households in the UK watched the opening ceremony of the London 2012 Olympics in 3D—but other broadcasts, such as Mr Stink (a 1-hour book adaptation shown at Christmas last year), saw just five percent of 3D-capable viewers watch in 3D.

And why does nobody watch 3D shows? Because it's a pain to do. Kim Shillinglaw, the BBC's head of 3D, said that audiences find it "quite hassly." With most 3D TV sets requiring special glasses and being picky about where exactly you sit, watching in 3D is less convenient, especially when lots of people are crowded around the set.

The BBC's trial has, therefore, confirmed what we cynics knew already: 3D was a gimmick that people can't be bothered with.

I'm not a complete 3D-hater. It can add a certain something—I saw Avatar in the cinema in both 2D and 3D, and the 3D made the already lush virtual world even more engaging. But if you're just slobbing it in front of the gogglebox, the extra effort hardly seems worthwhile, especially when most content isn't designed for 3D anyway.

Even 3D movies tend to make poor use of the technology, with most films not being meaningfully enriched by the extra dimension and annoying glasses.

The TV industry seems to have realized 3D's lack of appeal rather sooner than the BBC. 3D TV technology of some kind is now endemic, at least among high-end TV sets, but if this year's CES was any indication, TV manufacturers have already stopped pushing it as a meaningful feature, instead pinning their hopes on 4K.

141 Reader Comments

I recently discovered my tv's 3d capabilites, and i must admit that I'm completely hooked!

Why the uptake has been so slow, I have no idea. The Nazis (and others) documented parts of ww2 in 3d, and the resulting documentary which I saw a few weeks ago was stunning. I'm rapidly putting together a 3d movie and documentary collection.

Agreed, some 3d is better than others, but my 42" LG cost only $400. When it's done right, it's spectacular. I-robot in 3d is shining example.

3D gives me a headache almost every time. The only 3D i can tolerate is the IMAX with their passive glasses, although even there I cannot tolerate how much they increase the seat price just because it is 3D.

I have kids so we saw Mr Stink last Xmas (in 2D). There was no information that it was also available in 3D. My kids told me it was boring and we pretty much gave up on watching it before it finished. In any event it didn't do much for the cause of 3D.

There was a Stephen Fry steampunk drama on the other channel which we found slightly more interesting.

3D gives me a headache almost every time. The only 3D i can tolerate is the IMAX with their passive glasses, although even there I cannot tolerate how much they increase the seat price just because it is 3D.

Agreed. Despite the negative press, the hobbit was the first 3d movie I saw that didn't give me a headache/eye fatigue. I also know that most of the "pros" felt that the hobbit looked "too real" and criticized the high frame rate (HFR) technology that I'm praising.

The TV industry seems to have realized 3D's lack of appeal rather sooner than the BBC. 3D TV technology of some kind is now endemic, at least among high-end TV sets, but if this year's CES was any indication, TV manufacturers have already stopped pushing it as a meaningful feature, instead pinning their hopes on 4K.

That last sentence would have been a perfect place for a typo: "instead pinning their hopes on 4D". Because if 3D isn't selling, it's simply because it needs more 'D's!

I registered to post a comment about my experience with 3d stuff. Recently bought a monitor that had 3d capability (due to the fact that it had excellent specs otherwise) but the polarized glasses are awful. The colors are so dead. However much I wanted to like it, I couldn't get past the dullness of the colors.

I need glasses to watch TV clearly. Most of the time I don't even bother, and just put up with the blurriness. Unless I'm actively sitting down to watch a movie, TV is mostly just background noise.

I'm certainly not going to try to balance two sets of glasses on my face to be able to watch 3D TV, especially when the 3D glasses interfere with doing other tasks at the same time.

I think the reason the BBC saw success with the Opening Ceremony was that it was an event. People were willing to go out of their way to watch it properly and uninterrupted. That doesn't happen for most TV programmes. In my case, TV is usually something that is on while I do other tasks, not the sole focus of my attention.

[...] One of the people who was building Microsoft's tablet was friendly with Jobs' wife, Laurene Powell. He asked Jobs and Powell to come to his fiftieth birthday party. [...] At the party, the guy was telling Jobs about the Microsoft tablet and how great it was going to be.

This did not go over so well.

Here, in his own words, Jobs describes what happened, and what he did next:

This guy badgered me about how Microsoft was going to completely change the world with this tablet PC software and eliminate all notebook computers, and Apple ought to license his Microsoft software. But he was doing the device all wrong. It had a stylus. As soon as you have a stylus, you’re dead. This dinner was like the tenth time he talked to me about it, and I was so sick of it that I came home and said, "Fuck this, let’s show him what a tablet can really be."

Jobs says he went into Apple the next day and asked for a multi-touch tablet with no keyboard or stylus. He got one six months later. Instead of making it a tablet, though, Apple shrank it and made the iPhone. Later on, they released the iPad. [...]

Its too bad they gave up on 3d when Passive 3D glasses are just making the rounds.Ive tried them and they are lightweight compared to the older active glasses technology, the 3d colors are great plus they just look like a pair of shades so i can still move around the house wearing them and not be bothered wearing it.The cool factor is that the passive 3d glasses are real cheap you can get one for each member of the family and your guests.I think everybody should try the passive 3d sets and give them another chance.

Besides the lack of content, the main problem with 3D is the stupid insistence on active glasses. They're never charged when you need them, you have sync problems, and having enough of them for when you have guests is too expensive.I've seen this first hand with my brother-in-law's 3d TV he used to be proud of... for about a week

Of course, there's passive 3D, but then you have to buy an LG. And most people aren't even aware it exists outside movie theaters.

And the content... forget it. Most of it is CGI added just because they can do 3D and is more annoying than useful. A lot of 3D movies have the 3D added in post processing. Did you notice in Avatar that the backgrounds were just flat paintings and not 3D? What's the point of that?

I've seen an experimental russian movie around about 1980 with polarized glasses; it was your run-of-the-mill fantasy-ish story inspired from Russian folklore, just filmed with two cameras. The 3D was MUCH better than Avatar.

I see glasses-free 3d computer monitors taking off since computer users tend to sit a fixed distance and orientation from the display with little variation during normal use. Television, not so much and I don't see those problems changing anytime soon, too.

Its too bad they gave up on 3d when Passive 3D glasses are just making the rounds.Ive tried them and they are lightweight compared to the older active glasses technology, the 3d colors are great plus they just look like a pair of shades so i can still move around the house wearing them and not be bothered wearing it.The cool factor is that the passive 3d glasses are real cheap you can get one for each member of the family and your guests.I think everybody should try the passive 3d sets and give them another chance.

So, people who have already shelled out a large chuck of cash for a 3D TV should now shell out another pile of cash for a different kind of 3D?

I bought a Samsung 55" Plasma with 3d, like what some others have written before me - one of the main issue is the lack of content that is available. When I purchased my TV there was a rebate offer from Samsung whereby they will send a pair of glasses and a 3d Shrek DVD pack. So the first issue that I had was that once the TV arrived I had no content to watch on 3d, nor any glasses. After a couple of Samsung botch jobs, I ended up with 3 pairs of glasses and no DVD.

With the lack of content being readily available, the store that I purchased the TV did not have any content either, I resorted to downloading a Movie which was about 40gigs. That was my only 3d experience on my TV. I think I would watch a bit more 3d content, only selected titles mind you, but they need to make a commitment to 3d instead of making it a fad.

Apart from that, I didn't mind sitting in a certain spot (fealt like going to the movies an picking out the best seat), and wearing the glasses (it's a small price for the experience).

Its too bad they gave up on 3d when Passive 3D glasses are just making the rounds....I think everybody should try the passive 3d sets and give them another chance.

So, people who have already shelled out a large chuck of cash for a 3D TV should now shell out another pile of cash for a different kind of 3D?

It's the same 3D, it's just a different way of exposing it to the user. So anyone with a working 3D set can continue to use that just fine.

Personally I think what's needed is auto-stereoscopic 3D. Ie "glasses free" 3D. I have a couple of 3D cameras (Fuji Real3D series) and those screens and the Nintendo 3DS both use lenticular screens to create glasses free 3D viewing.

Things like this are already made for big screens as well, but it's still mostly for demos and prototypes. It wouldn't surprise me if it becomes a thing after 4K has become the norm and they want to make something new to get people to buy screens again.

Right now 3D at home kind of makes sense for movies and such. Because that's content where you sit down to watch something. But when broadcasting 3D you make the viewer think about "should I try to find where I put the glasses or should I just try to find something else that's on?" and for most programs that's not something you want the viewer to think about.

I've seen an experimental russian movie around about 1980 with polarized glasses; it was your run-of-the-mill fantasy-ish story inspired from Russian folklore, just filmed with two cameras. The 3D was MUCH better than Avatar.

Forgive me, but I thought that was indeed how almost all non-animated 3D films/programs are made?

I went to a garden party at Buckingham Palace (I wasn't invited, just the +1, but the cucumber sandwiches indeed had no crusts) and there was someone filming it in 3D with a double camera rig. Looked like this:

Seemed a right pain to carry around, and tricky to keep all the analogue camera adjustments in syc - zoom, focus etc. Google images for 3D camera rigs tells me they're mostly like that - though the better ones use cable / software sync and beamsplltting for better tweaking.

This sort of makes me wonder about the future of the Oculus Rift and it's eventual competitors. Both have cumbersome headsets, are new technologies unsure of a wide array of support.

I think the Rift has a better chance though because playing games is more often a solitary activity than a social one, there's general consumer enthusiasm about it, and most importantly they've been able to add an impressive feature to several existing games.

Perhaps we're entering the age of good enough graphics. I have a hard time believing that a population that watches billions of lo-def youtube movies really cares that much about fidelity.

I've seen an experimental russian movie around about 1980 with polarized glasses; it was your run-of-the-mill fantasy-ish story inspired from Russian folklore, just filmed with two cameras. The 3D was MUCH better than Avatar.

Forgive me, but I thought that was indeed how almost all non-animated 3D films/programs are made?

I've lived through two prior 3D crazes, and was quite the stereoscopic photographer back in the day - including owning a 3D slide projector. The novelty didn't survive wearing special glasses then, it doesn't now. Modern 3D is a failed marketing initiative, not a product that people were clamoring for.

I got excited watching Wimbledon yesterday when Sue Barker announced we could switch to channel 303 to watch in 3D. I leapt of the sofa, grabbed the active glasses that came with the TV, and in 30 seconds I was watching it in amazement.

The novelty quickly gave way to the fact that I found it hard to follow the game: It's a bit like your mind knows a trick is being played on it, so it spends time trying to understand or counteract the 3D effect, rather than just enjoying the program - not great for a fast sporting event.

I persevered for 10 minutes in the hope that I'd settle into the experience, but I just couldn't.

Next time we buy a TV, if it comes with passive 3D (and if content is still being broadcast) then I'll give it a try. It definitely won't be on my list of must-haves.

Besides the lack of content, the main problem with 3D is the stupid insistence on active glasses. They're never charged when you need them, you have sync problems, and having enough of them for when you have guests is too expensive.I've seen this first hand with my brother-in-law's 3d TV he used to be proud of... for about a week

While I'm no big fan of 3D, I don't think this is particularly accurate in general for active systems - I have two 3D TVs because it tends to be standard on higher models in the range but the batterylife in the glasses has been good (non rechargeable but they seem to last a while), they sync first time when they power on and they were cheap, a bundle of them were thrown in with the TV and while they can be pricey in shops they can usually be picked up cheap online.

They are heavier than passive glasses and they do need batteries but I don't find that to be an issue with them in practice nor do other people that have used them with my TV's. I find the bigger issue is that 3D content isn't that great, there's usually an initial wow factor but then you either don't really notice the 3D or you do notice it but then it's too intrusive.

When 3D is done well, I think it makes a great movie slightly greater.

Certain shots, such as a room full of dust or a cliff edge, are drastically improved when it's done right.

But most 3D is not done well. Fix that, and then I'll start watching 3D more often. I think the problem is not the technology, the problem is film studios haven't figured out how to fit 3D into their movies yet. We had the same problem with colour.

For everyone with two eyes, 3D content adds awesome third dimension. It's the way we see the world - why shouldn't we watch stories the same way?

I'm concerned that some people are throwing away a completely useful technology for absolutely no good reason.

I'm sure when the first stereo audio recordings appeared, people couldn't appreciate that either, considering it gimmicky or "dizzying" or useless. Nowadays you couldn't possibly sell or even market a mono recording.

Some of the issues that were brought up by commenters:- Passive 3D isn't prone to cause dizziness like active 3D is.- Yes the glasses slightly filter the colors, but that's factored into the color balance of the movie or the projection.

Lack of content is definitely a problem, but the technology itself is a step in the right direction. I specifically look for 3D movies with good stories.

I'm sure when the first stereo audio recordings appeared, people couldn't appreciate that either, considering it gimmicky or "dizzying" or useless. Nowadays you couldn't possibly sell or even market a mono recording.

This is a really great example. Whenever I hear a song where I notice it's stereo, I always go into the file's ID3 tags and flip the switch forcing it to play mono from then on.

But if a song is stereo and I don't notice it unless someone points it out, then I prefer stereo to mono.

In real life, anything your right ear can hear your left ear can also hear. Stereo songs should not break that rule ever, but they should emulate the fact that in real life your left/right ears always hear slightly different versions of the same sound.

3D should be the same. You shouldn't notice that it's a 3D movie at all, it should just look "right". I've only seen a couple of movies where it's done like that, and it works really well.

I'm sure when the first stereo audio recordings appeared, people couldn't appreciate that either, considering it gimmicky or "dizzying" or useless. Nowadays you couldn't possibly sell or even market a mono recording.

This is a really great example. Whenever I hear a song where I notice it's stereo, I always go into the file's ID3 tags and flip the switch forcing it to play mono from then on.

But if a song is stereo and I don't notice it unless someone points it out, then I prefer stereo to mono.

In real life, anything your right ear can hear your left ear can also hear. Stereo songs should not break that rule ever, but they should emulate the fact that in real life your left/right ears always hear slightly different versions of the same sound.

3D should be the same. You shouldn't notice that it's a 3D movie at all, it should just look "right". I've only seen a couple of movies where it's done like that, and it works really well.

Do you listen to classical music only? Lots of recorded music since at least the late 60s is highly produced, it's not "real". I quite enjoy Queen's A Night At The Opera in 5.1

My TV has 3D, only because at the time I purchased it, Panasonic did not make a high end plasma without it. I have never bought glasses to use it, and never intend to.

I have the 65 inch Panasonic plasma (2012 model) and 3D wasn't on the list of features I had to have at all. Because I was buying the set, wall mount, and some other items, I asked for 2 sets of glasses to be thrown in. I wasn't keen on $75/ea for something I rated as a <1% usage feature.

Now, I had worked an as a engineer at a firm that does audio/video hardware and services in college, so I may have a bit more knowledge. I like 3D in principle but content has always been the killer.

I have ESPN 3D, and I like football in 3D a lot. Sad that it's apparently dead. The cable provider has a 2nd 3D channel which I have yet to see ANYTHING since there's only a message saying to check listings for shows. (There are none!)

I have a small collection of 3D material, including Avatar. Also have a PS3 and several 3D games like WipeOut HD/Fury.

So, we have about 10-15% use of 3D in my house; much more than I originally thought.

Having seen systems from IMAX to whatever cheap ass setups friends and family have installed, the biggest issue, IMO, to getting a great picture is all about calibration of the gear. I have the gear to calibrate my hardware, and did so during break in of the panel. BTW, the THX Cinema setting on the Panasonic is very good OOTB to start with. Still, I did a Custom setting for the set and tweaked it myself...and at 100 hours, had an ISF certified tech do his own calibration. He spent over an hour, and changed very little from my setup. The changes he did make, we went over in detail.

People who visit me are quite frankly stunned at the results. Even some 'I hate 3D' folks are amazed with my rig. One recent guest stated "...this is the best TV I've ever seen!"

Sadly, I realize that 99.9% of consumers will NOT have this experience. It is absolutely impossible to get a decent result OOTB on a cheap 40" set. Anything less than 60 inches, at a distance of more than 8 feet, is worthless.